CASA accused of withholding key crash report

Updated
February 15, 2013 14:53:00

Senators have accused the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of a cover-up, claiming the organisation withheld key evidence and may have skewed the final investigation into the reasons why an aircraft was forced to ditch into the ocean off Norfolk island. It's been claimed that a CASA internal report found the authority would have identified major deficiencies at the company involved in the crash Pel-Air, if it had been properly carrying out its oversight duty - and may have prevented the crash.

SALLY SARA: Senators have accused the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of a cover-up claiming the organisation withheld key evidence and may have skewed the final investigation into an aircraft accident off Norfolk island.

It's been claimed that a CASA internal report found the authority would have identified major deficiencies in the company involved in the crash, Pel-Air, if it had been properly carrying out its oversight duty.

But, the inquiry's heard that CASA didn't hand over that report, because it didn't want to influence the investigation.

The aircraft with six people on board crashed into the ocean off Norfolk island in 2009 - all survived, but an official inquiry blamed the pilot for the accident.

One Senator thinks the crash may have been avoided if CASA had been properly carrying out its job.

Chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.

SABRA LANE: It was a remarkable story. On a stormy night on the 18th of November 2009, a CareFlight mission with six people on board, including a patient with a serious medical issue, crashed into the sea off Norfolk Island - everyone survived.

JOHN MCCORMICK: Now it's not every day that someone ditches an aeroplane, it's as simple as that. The mere fact that happened, in fact I was thunderstruck to start with that someone had got to that situation, for whatever reason.

SABRA LANE: The Australian Transport Safety Authority investigated the crash, and blamed the pilot but a Senate committee thinks there's more to it. It's discovered that CASA carried out its own internal inquiry following the crash, called the Chambers report.

That investigation found CASA should have known there were major issues at Pel-Air before the crash happened - if the authority had been properly supervising the company. But that report was never given the Australian Transport Safety Bureau - even though there is a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations, where information should be shared.

Liberal Senator David Fawcett.

DAVID FAWCETT: If you go to section 4.1 of the Chambers report, it states that it is likely that many of the deficiencies identified after the accident would have been detectable through interviews with line pilots and through the conduct of operational surveillance of line crews in addition to the surveillance, the management checks.

It strikes me that the Chambers report is quite specific and it is only one example. There is a number of other areas where it is fairly clear that there were deficiencies in the oversight that had they been addressed through effective audit, that the accident may well have been prevented.

SABRA LANE: Senator Fawcett used to be a pilot in the Australian Army.

DAVID FAWCETT: In the audit that CASA put together it says it's considered, this is CASA's own words, it is considered that the oversight by CASA has been inadequate as there is evidence to support that many of the problems identified by CASA during the surveillance audit of March 08 were never appropriately actioned.

There is a lack of any clear evidence to support corrective actions have been implemented, confirmed by CASA or that there were effective. If this process is indicative of broader practices of CASA, it is considered that CASA is exposed to unnecessary risk, particularly if required to provide evidence to support how it approved and operated a system, in this case their FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management Systems).

Now given that the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) chose to ignore the whole issue of fatigue and how that might have affected the errors that were made by the pilot and they did that because of a lack of evidence and CASA had a formal report within their system dealing with the issue of fatigue and chose not to disclose that to the ATSB as required by the MoU (memorandum of understanding) I think Mr McCormack, you'd have to agree would seem a little unusual to the reasonable man in the street.

SABRA LANE: CASA's John McCormick says the information was kept from the bureau of safety because CASA did not want to influence its investigations.

JOHN MCCORMICK: We conducted this in the best possible way we could. We did it with the most probity and the best goodwill that we could muster at the time. Now in retrospect should the ATSB have an internal CASA document? That's something that I'll take away and consider again.

DAVID FAWCETT: The issue for this inquiry is that you had in your possession information that would have triggered to the ATSB the fact that your oversight was not adequate. They were assuming that it was a defence that was in place and effective. You had written evidence saying that was not the case and by not disclosing that information, you have in fact shaped the outcome of the ATSB report.

SABRA LANE: Mr McCormick was subjected to two hours of questioning. Senator Nick Xenophon took issue with some his answers.

JOHN MCCORMICK: Well, Senator whether the ATSB would have changed its report as we've already said is a matter for the ATSB and I'm certain you can ask them that.

NICK XENOPHON: No, it's not. No, it's not.

JOHN MCCORMICK: Well, I can't put myself in the position of the ATSB and decide what I would have thought if I received a report.

NICK XENOPHON: But you've withheld information from the ATSB.

JOHN MCCORMICK: We did not withhold information. The information was not considered to be relevant to the operation, to the reporting procedures that went on. We are very cognisant that we did not want to interfere with anyone else doing the investigation, the other procedure that was on.

SABRA LANE: Senator Xenophon then asked the Transport Safety Bureau's chief commissioner Martin Dolan whether CASA should have given him the report and whether it would have made a difference.

NICK XENOPHON: Don't you think it's reasonable that you make an assessment as to whether something is relevant or not which you cannot do in the absence of knowing whether a document exists or not?

MARTIN DOLAN: As a general proposition Senator, more information is better than less and...

NICK XENOPHON: And you determine whether it is relevant or not in terms of (inaudible).

MARTIN DOLAN: And it would, in some cases, be better if we were in a position to assess the relevance of the information rather than another party, yes I would agree with that proposition.